- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Privatizing public hunting land
Posted on 1/16/19 at 2:27 pm to Mr Wonderful
Posted on 1/16/19 at 2:27 pm to Mr Wonderful
This has to be a troll, were you sent here from the Flyway Federation? This reads like one of those frick head's ideas...
0
Posted on 1/16/19 at 2:41 pm to Mr Wonderful
quote:
we’re broke
If you ask me the easiest way to increase tax REVENUE is to increase tax BASE (ie. grow the amount/size/quality businesses in your area).
IMO the biggest hindrances to business growth are land use restrictions and new business entry obstacles. The mitigation requirements for clearing up land are so insane that much useful land is eternally locked out of all but the most intensive development. On the other side we have literal mountains of paperwork and regulations to wade through that your average aspiring entrepreneur likely can’t manage.
I’m not saying I want people cutting down 200-yo cypress trees or selling high-powered explosives on the street corner, but if we relaxed regulations on both of these things I think most people would be shocked at the development that would be kicked off.
ETA: While I’m here I might as well say another thing that annoys me: levee protected land SHOULD NOT qualify to go into WRP/CRP. No exceptions. The land has already been heavily invested in once by protecting it from flooding so that it may be further developed. It makes zero sense for it to then be bought back out of production and development.
This post was edited on 1/16/19 at 2:51 pm
Posted on 1/16/19 at 2:47 pm to Cowboyfan89
quote:
At least we know you are just trolling now.
I would call it semi-trolling. You see I never said it was a good idea or that I supported the measure. Just bored and seeing how many of the “cut government spending, but don’t cut my shite” people are on the OB.
quote:
So you only want people who can afford to buy hunting land or spend $1000-2000+ a year on leases to be able to hunt?
Why not? That’s called capitalism.
quote:
How much money in LDWF's budget will dry up when average people stop buying hunting licenses because they don't have public land to hunt on?
Hopefully most of it. I’m a small government conservative.
quote:
And how much more common will hunters trespassing on private land to hunt since there's no public land available?
That’s why we have sheriff’s offices.
quote:
If I didn't have nearby WMA's to hunt then LDWF probably doesn't get $800-$1,000 or so from me in the form of a few years worth of hunting licenses before I sprung for the lifetime license.
I’m all for decreasing the amount of money the government receives from its citizens.
This post was edited on 1/16/19 at 2:49 pm
Posted on 1/16/19 at 2:51 pm to Mr Wonderful
quote:Did you fall out of the stupid tree when you were born? Nothing you have said, has made any sense up to this point.
Who cares. It’s still “state” money. So the statement that LDWF receives no funding from the “state” is false.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 2:52 pm to Mr Wonderful
quote:
Hopefully most of it. I’m a small government conservative.
There are far bigger fish to fry than public land if you want a smaller government.
quote:
I’m all for decreasing the amount of money the government receives from its citizens
Were do you think that the
quote:
sheriff’s offices
Get their funding?
This post was edited on 1/16/19 at 2:56 pm
Posted on 1/16/19 at 2:53 pm to Mr Wonderful
quote:
socialist
We’re all socialists to a degree. I’m guessing you don’t wanna deal with private fire dept and police, do you? There always needs to be a balance.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 2:56 pm to Mr Wonderful
YOU. SIR. ARE. AN. IDIOT
Posted on 1/16/19 at 2:57 pm to Mr Wonderful
quote:
I’m all for decreasing the amount of money the government receives from its citizens.
Theres a massive difference between governmental wealth distribution via taxing earnings and giving though government programs vs a USE tax where an agency is supported almost entirely by the participation of the public in the activity that the agency supports. The latter is a VERY conservative model of government. The former is not.
ETA: if not for hunters and fishermen, WLF doesnt exist, period. Not only does their monetary contributions support the management of game species. But also the management of non-game species.
This post was edited on 1/16/19 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 1/16/19 at 2:58 pm to Mr Wonderful
quote:
Why not? That’s called capitalism.
Lmao! So we are going to reduce the ability to hunt to who has the biggest pocket book. That's Europe, dumbass.
quote:
Hopefully most of it. I’m a small government conservative.
So then wildlife will be extinct in no time once there is no biologists or enforcement. Great idea.
quote:
I’m all for decreasing the amount of money the government receives from its citizens.
You mean like P-R and D-J? shite that citizens pushed for?
Someone ban this frickin clown.
This post was edited on 1/16/19 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 1/16/19 at 3:05 pm to The Last Coco
quote:
if not for hunters and fishermen, WLF doesnt exist, period.
Ehh. I’m not sure about completely abolishing WLF. But decreasing the cost of a license so I don’t have to support you button buck shooting freeloaders would be nice.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 3:08 pm to Mr Wonderful
And I thought you came here with a real inquiry and looking for discussion 
Posted on 1/16/19 at 3:10 pm to celltech1981
quote:
There are far bigger fish to fry than public land if you want a smaller government.
Maybe. Many Republicans have been floating this idea around though.
quote:
Were do you think that the sheriff’s offices Get their funding?
Sales tax, tickets, and court costs. I’m all for reducing those while we’re at it.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 3:11 pm to Mr Wonderful
quote:
But decreasing the cost of a license so I don’t have to support you button buck shooting freeloaders would be nice.
So you're a cheap arse too, huh?
Posted on 1/16/19 at 3:12 pm to Mr Wonderful
Literally the best thing about the government in the US is public land. The American model of land conservation is the best in the world.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 3:14 pm to Cowboyfan89
I FIGURED IT OUT! He's (it's) a liberal, PETA supporting nutjob
This post was edited on 1/16/19 at 3:15 pm
Posted on 1/16/19 at 3:15 pm to mylsuhat
quote:
And I thought you came here with a real inquiry and looking for discussion
It was a real inquiry. It’s not my fault no one wants to have a discussion.
What’s undeniable fact is that NWRs and WMAs would be much better managed in the hands of private individuals than the government. But no one wants to give up their free shite. And understandably so.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 3:16 pm to Mr Wonderful
It’s not free. #StateMoney
Posted on 1/16/19 at 3:17 pm to Mr Wonderful
quote:I don't necessarily agree. Many conservation organizations such as RMEF, BHA, etc have a lot of input when it comes to management.
What’s undeniable fact is that NWRs and WMAs would be much better managed in the hands of private individuals than the government
Forestry management is a weak spot that needs addressing
Posted on 1/16/19 at 3:18 pm to Mr Wonderful
quote:
What’s undeniable fact is that NWRs and WMAs would be much better managed in the hands of private individuals than the government.
Maybe, but they would be nothing more than playgrounds for the rich. You know, what that moron Mike Lee thinks public lands are now...
You get rid of public lands, and you pretty much spit on the North American Model of Conservation.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 3:20 pm to Mr Wonderful
Because it makes too much sense. Louisiana government isn’t fit to run a lemonade stand, nevertheless thousands of acres of hunting land. Sell it, privatize it, state could even work something out like 20% of income off the land each year. This would allow for the lands to be properly managed as well as bring in out of state hunters who would spend money in LA, while keeping the riff raff out.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News